Background: Since the passage of the Patient Self-Determination Act, numerous policy mandates and institutional measures have been implemented. It is unknown to what extent those measures have affected end-of-life care, particularly with regard to the do-not-resuscitate order.Methods: Retrospective cohort study to assess associations of the frequency and timing of DNR orders with advance directive status, patient demographics, physician’s specialty and extent of documentation of discussion on end-of-life care.Results: DNR orders were more frequent for patients on a medical service (...) than on a surgical service and were made earlier in the hospital stay for medicine than for surgical patients . 22.18% of all patients had some form of an advance directive in their chart, yet this variable had no impact on the frequency or timing of DNR ordering. Documentation of DNR discussion was significantly associated with the frequency of DNR orders and the time from DNR to death .Conclusions: The physician’s specialty continues to have a significant impact on the frequency and timing of DNR orders, while advance directive status still has no measurable impact. Additionally, documentation of end-of-life discussions is significantly associated with varying DNR ordering rates and timing. (shrink)

Some children living with life-shortening medical conditions may wish to attend school without the threat of having resuscitation attempted in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest on the school premises. Despite recent attention to in-school do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders, no assessment of state laws or school policies has yet been made. We therefore sought to survey a national sample of prominent school districts and situate their policies in the context of relevant state laws. Most (80%) school districts sampled did (...) not have policies, regulations, or protocols for dealing with student DNARs. A similar majority (76%) either would not honor student DNARs or were uncertain about whether they could. Frequent contradictions between school policies and state laws also exist. Consequently, children living with life-shortening conditions who have DNARs may not have these orders honored if cardiopulmonary arrest were to occur on school premises. Coordinated efforts are needed to harmonize school district, state, and federal approaches in order to support children and families' right to have important medical decisions honored. (shrink)

Over the past decade, public discussion has focused on the ethics of issuing Do‐Not‐Resuscitate Orders, and the failure of many hospitals to acknowledge their actions openly. Recent efforts on the part of some hospitals to establish formal DNR guidelines that are prudent, fair, and humane, are a helpful beginning, though they cannot account for all the vagaries of illness and human communication. But concerns about DNR should not divert us from looking closely and rigorously at other, more common treatment/nontreatment (...) decisions in the critical care setting. (shrink)

End-of-life decision making frequently occurs in the intensive care unit (ICU). There is a lack of information on how a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order affects treatments received by critically ill patients in ICUs. The objectives of this study were: (1) to compare the use of life support therapies between patients with a DNR order and those without; (2) to examine life support therapies prior to and after the issuance of a DNR order; and (3) to determine the clinical factors that influence (...) the initiation of a DNR order in ICUs in Taiwan. A prospective, descriptive, and correlational study was conducted. A total of 202 patients comprising 133 (65.8%) who had a DNR order, and 69 (34.1%) who did not, participated in this study. In the last 48 hours of their lives, patients who had a DNR order were less likely to receive life support therapies than those who did not have a DNR order. Older age, being unmarried, the presence of an adult child as a surrogate decision maker, a perceived inability to survive ultimate discharge from the ICU, and longer hospitalization in the ICU were significant predictors of issuing a DNR order for critically ill patients. This study will draw attention to how, when, and by whom, critically ill patients’ preferences about DNR are elicited and honored. (shrink)

BackgroundThe values and attitudes of healthcare professionals influence their handling of ‘do-not-attempt-resuscitation’ (DNAR) orders. The aim of this study was a) to describe attitudes, perceptions and practices among Swedish physicians and nurses towards discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation and DNAR orders with patients and their relatives, and b) to investigate if the physicians and nurses were familiar with the national ethical guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study based on a questionnaire and was conducted at (...) 19 wards in two regional hospitals and one county hospital.Results210 physicians and 312 nurses (n = 522) responded to the questionnaire. Every third (35%) professional had read the guidelines with a lower proportion of physicians (29%) compared to nurses (38%). Around 40% of patients had the opportunity or ability to participate in the DNAR discussion. The DNAR decision was discussed with 38% of patients and the prognosis with 46%. Of the patients who were considered to have the ability to participate in the discussion, 79% did so. The majority (81%) of physicians and nurses believed that patients should always be asked about their preferences before a DNAR decision was made.ConclusionsSwedish healthcare professionals take a patient’s autonomy into account regarding DNAR decisions. Nevertheless, as 50% of patients were considered unable to participate in the DNAR discussion, questions remain about the timing of patient participation and whether more discussions could have been conducted earlier. Given the uncertainty about timing, the majority of patients deemed competent participated in DNAR discussions. (shrink)

Objectives: To quantify the use of do-not-resuscitate orders in a tertiary-care children’s hospital and to characterise the circumstances in which such orders are written.Design: Retrospective study conducted in a 500-bed children’s hospital in Taiwan.Patients: The course of 101 patients who died between January 2002 and December 2005 was reviewed. The following data were collected: age at death, gender, disease and its status, place of death and survival. There were 59 males and 42 females with a median age of (...) 103 months . 50 children had leukaemias, and 51 had malignancies other than leukaemia. The t test and the χ2 test were applied as appropriate.Results: The study found that 44% of patient deaths occurred in the paediatric oncology ward; 29% of patient deaths occurred in the intensive care unit; and 28% of patients died in their home or at another hospital. Other findings included the following: 46 of 101 patients died after attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 55 died with a DNR order in effect. The mean age at death was 9.8 years in both groups with or without DNR orders.Conclusions: From the study of patient deaths in this tertiary-care children’s hospital, it was concluded that an explicit DNR order is now the rule rather than the exception, with more DNR orders being written for patients who have been ill longer, who have solid tumours, who are not in remission and who are in the ward. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungWährend die juristische und medizinethische Rechtfertigung des Verzichts auf Wiederbelebung in Deutschland akademisch hinreichend geklärt ist, zeigen sich doch erhebliche Unterschiede und zahlreiche Probleme bei der praktischen Umsetzung in der Klinik. Innerhalb des interdisziplinären Behandlungsteams gehören Kommunikationsdefizite und die Intransparenz der ethischen Entscheidungsprozesse zu den häufigsten Schwierigkeiten, die in der Medizinischen Klinik für Nephrologie und Hypertensiologie am Klinikum Nürnberg mit der Implementierung einer hausinternen Leitlinie, der Anordnung zum Verzicht auf Wiederbelebung, behoben werden sollten.Die Evaluationsstudie, die 118 VaW-Anordnungen bei 4718 Behandlungsfällen (...) im Zeitraum von November 2004 bis Juli 2005 einschloss, verfolgte einen dualen Forschungsansatz. Eine quantitative Dokumentationsanalyse aller VaW-Protokolle wurde mit der leitfadengestützten Befragung von 16 Ärzten und Pflegekräften kombiniert.Teambesprechungen waren in 62,4 %, Entscheidungsgründe in 74,6 % aller VaW-Protokolle dokumentiert. Die Interviews ergaben eine positive, aber berufsgruppendifferente Bewertung der Kommunikation, wobei die Pflegenden kritischer eingestellt waren als ihre medizinischen Kollegen. Die VaW-Dokumentation bewirkte nach Auffassung aller Befragten eine hohe Nachvollziehbarkeit und Transparenz. Die VaW-Anordnung wurde darüber hinaus als gut anwendbar und praxistauglich betrachtet. Nahezu alle Befragten sprachen sich für eine Beibehaltung des VaWVerfahrens in der Klinik aus.Die Implementierung der VaW-Anordnung als hausinterne Leitlinie und Dokumentationsstandard hat zu einer Förderung des interdisziplinären Dialogs und zu einer erheblichen Verbesserung der Transparenz der ethischen Entscheidungsprozesse im Rahmen des Verzichts auf Wiederbelebung geführt. Hilfreich und praxistauglich erfreut sich die VaW-Anordnung einer hohen Akzeptanz bei Pflegenden und Medizinern und wird seit drei Jahren in der Nephrologie am Klinikum Nürnberg konsequent angewendet. (shrink)

Elderly persons are living longer with debilitating illnesses and are at risk for suicide. They are also more likely to have a living will with a DNR order. With the medical culture’s emphasis on patient autonomy, an ethical approach that respects the dignity of these suffering human persons is needed. Suicide must be viewed as an act against the principle of life and the intrinsic good of the human being. Beneficence outweighs autonomy in such cases. Medical providers are at risk (...) of mediate material cooperation with the evil of such an act if they fail to preserve a life that can be saved. DNR orders should be reversed in these situations until these patients receive psychological treatment and pain relief. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 14.4 : 661–671. (shrink)

Objective: To evaluate the effect of an intervention on the understanding and use of DNR orders by physicians; to assess the impact of understanding the importance of involving competent patients in DNR decisions. Design: Prospective clinical interventional study. Setting: Internal medicine department (70 beds) of the hospital of La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland. Participants: Nine junior physicians in postgraduate training. Intervention: Information on the ethics of DNR and implementation of new DNR orders. Measurements and main results: Accurate understanding, interpretation, and (...) use of DNR orders, especially with respect to the patients’ involvement in the decision were measured. Junior doctors writing DNR orders had an extremely poor understanding of what DNR orders mean. The correct understanding of the definition of a DNR order increased from 31 to 93% (p<0.01) after the intervention and the patients’ involvement went from 17% to 48% (p<0.01). Physicians estimated that 75% of their DNR patients were mentally competent at the time of the decision. Conclusion: An intervention aimed at explaining the ethical principles and the definition of DNR orders improves understanding of them, and their implementation, as well as patient participation. Specific efforts are needed to increase the involvement of mentally competent patients in the decision. (shrink)

Objective:To evaluate the effect of an intervention on the understanding and use of DNR orders by physicians; to assess the impact of understanding the importance of involving competent patients in DNR decisions.Design:Prospective clinical interventional study.Setting:Internal medicine department (70 beds) of the hospital of La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland.Participants:Nine junior physicians in postgraduate training.Intervention:Information on the ethics of DNR and implementation of new DNR orders.Measurements and main results:Accurate understanding, interpretation, and use of DNR orders, especially with respect to the patients’ (...) involvement in the decision were measured. Junior doctors writing DNR orders had an extremely poor understanding of what DNR orders mean. The correct understanding of the definition of a DNR order increased from 31 to 93% (p<0.01) after the intervention and the patients’ involvement went from 17% to 48% (p<0.01). Physicians estimated that 75% of their DNR patients were mentally competent at the time of the decision.Conclusion:An intervention aimed at explaining the ethical principles and the definition of DNR orders improves understanding of them, and their implementation, as well as patient participation. Specific efforts are needed to increase the involvement of mentally competent patients in the decision. (shrink)

Consent ought to be required to withhold treatment that is in a patient’s best interests to receive. Do not resuscitate orders are examples of best interests assessments at the end of life. Such assessments represent value judgments that cannot be validly ascertained without patient input. If patient input results in that patient dissenting to the DNR order then individual physicians are not justified in overriding such dissent. To do so would give unjustifiable primacy to the values of the individual (...) physician. Therefore patient consent is effectively required to write a DNR order. Patient dissent to a DNR order should trigger a fair process mechanism to resolve the dispute. (shrink)

Since their introduction as ‘no code’ in the 1980s and their later formalisation to ‘do not resuscitate’ orders, such directions to withhold potentially life-extending treatments have been accompanied by multiple ethical issues. The arguments for when and why to instigate such orders are explored, including a consideration of the concept of futility, allocation of healthcare resources, and reaching a balance between quality of life and quality of death. The merits and perils of discussing such decisions with patients and/or (...) their relatives are reviewed and the unintended implications of ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ orders are examined. Finally, the paper explores some alternative methods to approaching the resuscitation decision, and calls for empirical evaluation of such methods that may reduce the ethical dilemmas physicians currently face. (shrink)

The question of whether Do Not Resuscitate orders should be sustained in the operating room was brought to our ethics committee by a pulmonologist and involved one of his patients for whom he serves as a primary care physician. His patient, a woman with chronic obstructive lung disease was electing, for comfort purposes, to have a hip pinning following a fracture. At the same time, she wished to have a DNR order covering her entire hospital stay. The anesthesiologist described (...) her direction as “improper” and refused to participate in surgical procedures if DNR orders extended to the operating room. The patient refused to rescind the order during surgery. As a result, the surgery was canceled to the great chagrin of the patient. (shrink)

Patients in the United States have been subject to an evergrowing “avalanche” of unwanted medical treatment. This is economically, ethically, and legally wrong. As one advocacy campaign puts it: “Patients should receive the medical treatments they want. Nothing less. Nothing more.” First, unwanted medical treatment constitutes waste (and often fraud or abuse) of scarce healthcare resources. Second, it is a serious violation of patients’ autonomy and self-determination. Third, but for a few rare exceptions, administering unwanted medical treatment contravenes settled legal (...) rules and principles. This “Legal Briefing” describes a central and growing role for the law. Specifically, courts and agencies have increasingly imposed penalties on healthcare providers who deliberately or negligently disregard advance directives and DNR (donot-resuscitate) orders. I group these legal developments into the following five categories: 1. Five Types of Unwanted Medical Treatment2. State and Federal Duties to Follow Advance Directives3. Doctors Hospital of Augusta v. Alicea4. Other Lawsuits for Ignoring Advance Directives5. Administrative Penalties for Ignoring Advance Directives. (shrink)

In this article, we comment on Ciaffa’s article ‘The Ethics of Unilateral Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders for COVID-19 Patients.’ We summarize his argument criticizing futility and utilitarianism as the key ethical justifications for unilateral do-not-resuscitate orders for patients with COVID-19.

Purpose: Physicians are often reluctant to discuss “Do Not Resuscitate” orders with patients. Although perceived self-efficacy is a known prerequisite for behavioural change, little is understood about the confidence of physicians regarding DNR discussions.Subjects and methods: A survey of 217 internal medicine attendings and 132 housestaff at two teaching hospitals about their attitudes and confidence regarding DNR discussions.Results: Participants were significantly less confident about their ability to discuss DNR orders than to discuss consent for medical procedures , and (...) this was true for both attendings and housestaff . In a multivariate logistic model of confidence regarding DNR discussions, women were less confident than men ; house officers were less confident than attendings , those who were less confident of their ability to discuss medical procedures were less confident discussing DNR , and those who found talking to patients about DNR orders very difficult reported less confidence than those who did not .Conclusion: We conclude that physicians’ confidence regarding DNR discussions is low compared with their confidence regarding other medical discussions and that confidence varies by sex and perceived difficulty of the task. Efforts to improve DNR discussions should explore the need to tailor educational interventions to fit these characteristics. (shrink)

OBJECTIVE: To report and analyse the pattern of end-of-life decision making for terminal Chinese cancer patients. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study. SETTING: A cancer clinical trials unit in a large teaching hospital. PATIENTS: From April 1992 to August 1997, 177 consecutive deaths of cancer clinical trial patients were studied. MAIN MEASUREMENT: Basic demographic data, patient status at the time of signing a DNR consent, or at the moment of returning home to die are documented, and circumstances surrounding these events evaluated. RESULTS: (...) DNR orders were written for 64.4% of patients. Patients in pain (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.89), especially if requiring opioid analgesia (odds ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.77), were factors associated with a higher probability of such an order. Thirty-five patients were taken home to die, a more likely occurrence if the patient was over 75 years (odds ratio 0.12, 95% CI 0.04-0.34), had children (odds ratio 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.79), had Taiwanese as a first language (odds ratio 6.74, 95% CI 3.04-14.93), or was unable to intake orally (odds ratio 2.73, 95% CI 1.26-5.92). CPR was performed in 30 patients, none survived to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: DNR orders are instituted in a large proportion of dying Chinese cancer patients in a cancer centre, however, the order is seldom signed by the patient personally. This study also illustrates that as many as 20% of dying patients are taken home to die, in accordance with local custom. (shrink)

This paper examines several decision-making models that have been proposed to limit the use of CPR for COVID-19 patients. My main concern will be to assess proposals for the implementation of unilateral DNRs — i.e., orders to withhold CPR without the agreement of patients or their surrogates.

Background To characterize patients dying in a community hospital with or without attempting cardiopulmonary resuscitation and to describe patient involvement in, documentation of, and compliance with decisions on resuscitation. Methods All patients who died in Kalmar County Hospital during January 1, 2016 until December 31, 2016 were included. All information from the patients’ electronic chart was analysed. Results Of 660 patients female), 30 were pronounced dead in the emergency department after out-of-hospital CPR. Of the remaining 630 patients a (...) DNAR order had been documented in 558 patients. Seventy had no DNAR order and 2 an explicit order to do CPR. In 43 of these 70 patients CPR was unsuccessfully attempted while the remaining 27 patients died without attempting CPR. In 2 of 558 patients CPR was attempted despite a DNAR order in place. In 412 patients the DNAR order had not been discussed with neither patient nor family/friends. Moreover, in 75 cases neither patient nor family/friends were even informed about the decision on code status. Conclusions In general, a large percentage of patients in our study had a DNAR order in place. However, 27 patients died without CPR attempt or DNAR order. DNAR orders had not been discussed with the patient/surrogate in almost three fourths of the patients. Further work has to be done to elucidate the barriers to discussions of CPR decisions with the patient. (shrink)

Caring for children with life-shortening illnesses is a humbling task. While some decisions are simple and safe, the emotionally-charged choices regarding how to best care for these children often...

BackgroundThe acceptance or practical application of the do-not-resuscitate order is substantially dependent on internal or personal factors; in a way that decision-making about this issue can be specific to each person. Moreover, most nurses feel morally and emotionally stressed and confused during the process decision-making regarding DNR order. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to evaluate nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order in a systematic review.MethodsThis critical survey was conducted using a systematic review protocol. To this end, the most (...) relevant articles published in domestic and foreign databases with no time limits until October 2018 were searched. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were articles on DNR order, studies about nurses’ attitudes, descriptive and analytical research papers, as well as those with download links and full texts. The given articles were also assessed in terms of their quality and their main results were extracted.ResultsOf the total number of 1663 articles searched in the process of systematic review to investigate nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order, 88 articles were included in the full-text review step and finally 10 articles, meeting the inclusion criteria, were found. Assessing the quality of articles included in this review showed that 8 articles, in general, were of good quality and 2 studies were characterized with moderate quality. The main factors associated with nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order were grouped into three categories of (1) nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order, (2) guidelines for DNR order, and (3) decision-making by patients and their families about DNR order. In most of the studies examined, nurses’ attitudes towards DNR order were reported positive.ConclusionIt seemed that nurses were willing to get involved in DNR order and each hospital was recommended to develop a written DNR policy directing individuals and avoiding their confusion in this respect. (shrink)

Following the introduction of do-not-resuscitate orders in the 1970s, there was widespread misinterpretation of the term among healthcare professionals. In this brief report, we present findings from a survey of healthcare professionals. Our aim was to examine current understanding of the term do-not-attempt-resuscitate, decision-making surrounding DNAR and awareness of current guidelines. The survey was distributed to doctors and nurses in a university teaching hospital and affiliated primary care physicians in Dublin via email and by hard copy at educational meetings (...) from July to December 2014. A total of 519 completed the survey. The response rate in the hospital doctors group was 35.5%, 19.8% in the nurses group but 68.8% in the specialist nurses group and 40% in the primary care physician group.Alarmingly, our results demonstrate that 26.8% of staff nurses and 30% of primary care physicians surveyed believed that a patient with a DNAR order could not receive any/at least one of a list of simple treatments including antibiotics, physiotherapy, intravenous fluids, pain relief, oxygen, nasogastric feeding or airway suctioning, which were higher percentages compared to the other hospital doctors and experienced nurses groups with statistically significant differences. Furthermore, a higher percentage of staff nurses and primary care physicians believed that a patient with a DNAR order could not be referred to hospital from home/a nursing home, when compared with other healthcare groups. Our findings highlight continued misunderstanding and over-interpretation of DNAR orders. Further collaboration and information is required for meaningful Advance Care Plans. (shrink)

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation is the default response for persons who suffer cardiac or pulmonary arrest, except in cases in which there exists a do-not-resuscitate order. This default mindset is based on the rule of rescue and the ethical principle of beneficence. However, due to the lack of efficacy and the high risk of potential harm inherent in CPR, this procedure should not be the default intervention for cardiac or pulmonary arrest. Although CPR is a lifesaving medical intervention, it has limited (...) positive results and the potential for multiple harmful consequences. Given the limited potential of CPR as a medical procedure, clinicians and patients must be educated regarding its limited potential, and procedures must be developed to help determine when it is appropriate as a medical intervention. (shrink)

The COVID-19 Pandemic a stress test for clinical medicine and medical ethics, with a confluence over questions of the proportionality of resuscitation. Drawing upon his experience as a clinical ethicist during the surge in New York City during the Spring of 2020, the author considers how attitudes regarding resuscitation have evolved since the inception of do-not-resuscitate orders decades ago. Sharing a personal narrative about a DNR quandry he encountered as a medical intern, the author considers the balance (...) of patient rights versus clinical discretion, warning about the risk of resurgent physician paternalism dressed up in the guise of a public health crisis. (shrink)

Questions related to end-of-life decision making are common in clinical ethics and may be exceedingly difficult. Chief among these are the provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do-not-resuscitate orders (DNRs). To better address such questions, clarity is needed on the values of medical ethics that underlie CPR and the relevant moral framework for making treatment decisions. An informed consent model is insufficient to provide justification for CPR. Instead, ethical justification for CPR rests on the rule of rescue and (...) on substituted interest judgments. Patients’ known wishes and values are relevant, particularly in protecting them from unwanted CPR. Clinicians should rescue patients with the means at their disposal, as a prima facie moral imperative, unless there are compelling reasons to refrain. We present a moral framework for making decisions regarding CPR and DNR. (shrink)

In the case of an intellectually disabled patient, the attending physician was restricted from writing a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) order. Although the rationale for this restriction was to protect the patient from an inappropriate quality of life judgment, it resulted in a worse death than the patient would have experienced had he not been disabled. Such restrictions that are intended to protect intellectually disabled patients may violate their right to equal treatment and to a dignified death.

One hundred inpatients on an acute hospital elderly care unit and 43 of their relatives were interviewed shortly before hospital discharge. Eighty per cent of elderly patients and their relatives were aware of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Television drama was their main source of information. Patients and relatives overestimated the effectiveness of CPR. Eighty-six per cent of patients were willing to be routinely consulted by doctors about their own CPR status, but relatives were less enthusiastic about routine consultation. Patients' and (...) relatives' views about the appropriateness of CPR did not differ significantly. Seventeen percent of patients did not desire CPR. However, 64 per cent of patients were ultimately willing to follow their doctor's advice about the appropriateness of CPR. The conclusion reached is that mentally competent, elderly patients but not their relatives should be routinely consulted about their own desire for CPR in order to avoid resuscitating patients against their wishes. Further research is required to find out how patients would feel about resuscitation if they were terminally ill or chronically confused, and how carers would feel about resuscitating such patients. (shrink)

In the context of 'Do-not-resuscitate' (DNR) decisions, there is a lack of information in the UK on the opinions of patients and prospective patients. Written anonymous responses to questionnaires issued to 322 out-patient subjects showed that 97 per cent would opt for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in their current state of health. In the hypothetical circumstance of having advanced senile dementia only 10 per cent would definitely want CPR, with 75 per cent preferring not to have CPR. There were no (...) significant correlations between the responses and sex or age. Of 270 patients asked verbally if they found the questions disturbing, none said they did. These findings show that the great majority of patients would not wish CPR if severely senile, and that patients are not disturbed by questions relating to their choice for or against CPR. This should encourage further investigations of patients' opinions on CPR in a broader range of conditions, and greater use of DNR orders. (shrink)

The bioethical issues confronting the Jewish chaplain in a long-term care facility are critical, particularly as life-support systems become more sophisticated and advance directives become more commonplace. May an elderly competent patient refuse CPR in advance if it is perceived as a life-prolonging measure? May a physician withhold CPR or artificial nutrition and hydration (which some view as basic care and not as therapeutic intervention) from terminal patients with irreversible illnesses? In this study of Jewish ethics relating to these issues, (...) the author carefully examines the moral implications and legal precedents in the literature. Jewish ethics, affirming a 'sanctity of life' position, suggest that while an elderly person may direct in advance that CPR not be administered in most instances, in the absence of a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order, CPR must be performed. In reference to 'tube-feeding', while there is some debate about whether elderly patients may refuse the initiation of 'tube-feeding', there is a consensus that once initiated, it may not be withdrawn. (shrink)

A Do Not Resuscitate order reflects a considered judgment that a physician can no longer stave off death. Why, then, have a patient consent to such an order? The primary point is that physicians should share with patients their judgment about what medicine can and cannot do. Because we cannot make death go away, we must make decisions about when to withhold or limit resuscitation openly, in honest and trusting conversation between doctor and patient.

Background:The decision whether to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation may sometimes be ethically complex. While studies have addressed some of these issues, along with the role of nurses in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, most have not considered the importance of nurses acting as advocates for their patients with respect to cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Research objective:To explore what the nurse’s advocacy role is in cardiopulmonary resuscitation from the perspective of patients, relatives, and health professionals in the Basque Country (Spain).Research design:An exploratory critical qualitative (...) study was conducted from October 2015 to March 2016. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.Participants:Four discussion groups were held: one with patients and relatives (n = 8), two with nurses (n = 7 and n = 6, respectively), and one with physicians (n = 5).Ethical considerations:Approval was obtained from the Basque Country Clinical Research Ethics Committee.Findings:Three significant themes were identified: (a) accompanying patients during end of life in a context of medical dominance, (b) maintaining the pact of silence, and (c) yielding to legal uncertainty and concerns.Discussion:The values and beliefs of the actors involved, as well as pre-established social and institutional rules reduced nurses’ advocacy to that of intermediaries between the physician and the family within the hospital environment. On the contrary, in primary health care, nurses participated more actively within the interdisciplinary team.Conclusion:This study provides key information for the improvement and empowerment for ethical nursing practice in a cardiac arrest, and provides the perspective of patients and relatives, nurses and physicians. (shrink)

Since the last generation medical ethics has seen a remarkable shift from benign medical paternalism to patient rights and autonomy. Whereas once it might have been acceptable for doctors to decide, largely on their own, what was in the best interests of their patients, today senior health professionals are expected to make decisions jointly both with patients or their carers and with other health professionals. Patient autonomy and justice, and not simply beneficence, are usually thought to be crucial to medical (...) ethics today.Although I strongly support this shift in medical ethics, I believe it is important to recognise that it has some cost to medical professionals, to patients and even at times to the National Health Service . Medical paternalism, when it was genuinely benign, did have some benefits both for doctors and for their patients. Yet precisely because most of us are no longer prepared to be at the receiving end of such paternalism, these particular benefits are now largely lost to us.The new joint statement, Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation,1 illustrates this point well. At the outset it admits that “health professionals are aware that decisions about attempting resuscitation raise very sensitive and potentially distressing issues for the patient and people emotionally close to the patient”. It was because of these sensitive and potentially distressing issues that it was once thought acceptable to make do not attempt resuscitation orders without consulting either patients or their families and with the knowledge that the latter would probably never discover that such orders had ever been made. Now, however, health workers are warned frankly that they “should remember …. (shrink)

In March of this year the British Medical Association , the Resuscitation Council and the Royal College of Nursing published guidelines outlining the legal and ethical standards for decision making in relation to cardiopulmonary resuscitation .1 The guidance follows a year of increasing public awareness and concern about the issue and builds upon joint guidance issued by these institutions in June 1999.In April 2000 Age Concern issued a press release stating that “some doctors are ignoring national guidelines on (...) the resuscitation of older people” and indicating that they had information on cases that had come to light in their campaign against age discrimination. Age Concern went on to say that older people have found “not for resuscitation” recorded in their medical notes without their agreement or knowledge.During the same month Professor Shah Ebrahim wrote a leader in the British Medical Journal stating that doctors regularly issue “do not resuscitate” orders for patients without their knowledge.2 He claimed that black people, alcohol mis-users, non-English speakers and those with HIV are more likely to get a “do not resuscitate” order, suggesting that prejudice is influencing medical decisions.This combination of events was followed by intense press and media interest in the way in which decisions were being made about cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Such was the level of concern that a health service circular was issued to all National Health Service trust chief executives in September 2000 asking that appropriate resuscitation policies be in place which respect patients' rights, are understood by …. (shrink)

In a current clinical trial for Emergency Preservation and Resuscitation, Dr. Samuel Tisherman of the University of Maryland aims to induce therapeutic hypothermia in order to ‘buy time’ for operating on victims of severe exsanguination. While recent publicity has framed this controversial procedure as ‘killing a patient to save his life’, the US Army and Acute Care Research appear to support the study on the grounds that such patients already face low chances of survival. Given that enrollment in the (...) trial must be non-voluntary, the study has received an exemption from federal standards for obtaining informed consent. How exactly, if at all, is non-voluntary enrollment morally justifiable? In this essay, I appeal to the notable work of Hans Jonas in an effort to defend the EPR trial's use of non-voluntary enrollment. It is often thought and, as I show, it may appear that Jonas has called for the end of experimental medical practice. Still, I derive from Jonas a principle of double-effect upon which physicians may be seen as morally permitted to pursue innovations in emergency medicine but only as a byproduct of pursuing therapeutic success. With this position, I argue that the EPR trial can be granted a stronger philosophical justification than simply waiving the requirement of obtaining informed consent. The double-effect justification would obtain, perhaps regardless of the success of such innovative procedures as therapeutic hypothermia. (shrink)

In this chapter, we consider how a commitment to acting in a child’s interestsChild's interests can be brought to bear on three specific ethical quandaries that face those caring for children at the end of lifeEnd-of-life, and how such a commitment might seem to cohere or be in tension with other principles such as autonomyAutonomy and justiceJustice. We examine the status of ‘do not resuscitateDo Not Resuscitate ’ orders in children and argue that they cannot exist in children in (...) the same form as in adults. Since the standard of ethical permissibility is set by the interestsInterest of the child, rather than the preferencesPreferences of parentParents or doctor, there is no single person with authorityAuthority to agree an adult-style DNRDo Not Resuscitate. Looking at clinically-assisted feeding or hydrationHydration, we argue that withholding, withdrawing, commencing or continuing it each constitutes an intervention and needs to be carefully justified by considering its burdens and harmsHarm in the broadest sense reasonableReasonable. Finally, we consider ‘palliative sedationPalliative sedation’ and suggest that, while there are circumstances under which sedation is an inevitable result of adequate symptom controlSymptom control, impaired consciousness does not of itself represent a way to control symptoms and should not be deliberately induced. (shrink)